Book: Contemporary Moral Problems: The Debate over Utilitarianism by James Rachels
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/

Quote: “There is a sense in which no moral philosopher can completely reject Utilitarianism.”

Learning Expectation: I am expecting to:
• Know why it is called a Debate over Utilitarianism
• Know if Rachel and I had the same sentiments about Utilitarianism

Review:
As Mill put it, or according to Mill “The utilitarian doctrine is that happiness is desirable and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being desirable as means to that end.”

Based on this question, Rachels asked what really happiness is. What is this thing that it is desirable?

I read on this chapter said that the questions what things are good is different on what actions are right. But if you will ask a Utilitarian, it will refer to number one first before answer the number two questions. Like what I said on the previous review, Utilitarian point of view stated that right actions are the things that are good.

Back to what I stated on the first line, happiness is what people desire but what it is happiness?

According to hedonism, what could bring happiness is the ultimate good, and thus can’t bring happiness is the ultimate bad. Like what it is also on this chapter, hedonism is not that good because it can make silly situation into a totally disastrous one. I do agree that Hedonism gets thing the wrong way around. It is really true because instead of looking at other perspective or the brighter side, people tend to be negative towards things.

Like what Rachel says, happiness is a response we have to the attainment of things that we recognized as good, independently and in their own right. It is subjective and not dependents on what other people look at it.

Happiness isn’t the only thing that Rachel debated towards the Utilitarianism; he also said that it doesn’t go with the ideal justice. And I do agree unto that because like what I said on my review on Utilitarianism, the justice or judgment will be based on how many people things that it is good or bad. If many think killing is good, it will legal and proper justice, but when you really look at it, it is not morally right.
Thought Rachel said those things, what I like about his point is that he classified the Utilitarianism, and Rule-Utilitarianism and Act-Utilitarianism. The Rule-Utilitarianism is like the classic view but the only difference is that it follows rules or laws, while the Act-Utilitarianism is the same as the old or the Utilitarianism.

What I have learned:

I learned that Rule are still okay when you want to create judgment or justice because you can say that it is fair and there are no biases. Unlike when it is right when everything thinks that it is right and wrong when you belong to the minority.

Having that kind of thinking is something that we can consider as discrimination because the law decided to be on the side of the majority even them were the one at fault.

I also learned on this chapter that Happiness is very subjective. You are the only one who can define what happiness is for you. You are the only one also who can change your perspective and outlook on whatever things you are dealing with.

Review Questions:

1. Rachels says that classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions. What are they?
2. Explain the problem with hedonism. How do defenders of utilitarianism respond to this problem?
3. What are the objections about justice, rights, and promises?
4. Distinguish between rule- and act- utilitarianism. How does rule-utilitarianism reply to the objections?
5. What is the third line of defense?

Answer:

1. Classical Utilitarianism is classified as:
a. First, Actions are to be judged right or wrong solely in the virtue of their consequences.
b. Second, in assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused.
c. Third, in calculating happiness or unhappiness that will be caused, no ones happiness as to be counted as more important than anyone else’s.

2. Hedonism is the idea about happiness is the one ultimate good and unhappiness is the one ultimate evil. According to Rachels, the problem about Hedonism is it gets thing the wrong way around. Hedonism misunderstands the nature of happiness. Happiness is not something that is recognized as good and sought for its own sake, with other things appreciated only as means of bringing it about.

Utilitarianism sought a way to formulate their view without assuming hedonistic account of good an evil. There is one English philosopher, in named of G.E. Moore suggested that there are three (3) obvious intrinsic goods; a.) Pleasures, b.)Friendships, c.) And aesthetics enjoyment and that is right actions are those that increase the world’s supply of such things.

Other Utilitarians have tried to by pass the question of how many things are good in themselves, and then leaving it to an open question and saying only that right actions are the ones that have the best result, however goodness is measured.

3. The objections about Justice, Rights and Promises in relation with what was written on the book are as follows:

a.) Justice – If someone is on something like what the case on this book, on Utilitarian grounds, he SHOULD bear false witness against the innocent person.
b.) Rights – What about the morality of the officer’s behaviors?
c.) Promise or Backward-looking reasons – Why is Utilitarianism vulnerable to what promises stated that if Utilitarianism says that consequences are the only things that matters, seems mistaken.

4. Act-Utilitarianism is the original theory while the new version is the Rule-Utilitarianism which rules are established by reference to the principle and individual’s acts will then be judged right and wrong by reference to the rules.

5. The third line of defense is a small group of contemporary utilitarian’s has had a very different response to the utilitarian arguments. That argument points out that the classical theory is at odds with ordinary notions of justice, individual rights, and so on; to this there response is essentially, “So what?”

Discussion Question:

1. Smart’s defense of utilitarianism is to reject common moral beliefs when they conflict with utilitarianism. Is this acceptable to you or not? Explain your answer
2. A utilitarian is supposed to give moral consideration to all concerned. Who must be considered? What about nonhuman animals? How about lakes and streams?
3. Rachels claims that merit should be given moral consideration independent of utility. Do you agree?

Answers:

1. It is not acceptable for me because personally I wouldn’t sacrifice moral beliefs over utilitarianism because mainly I am not a utilitarian, second, I don’t just think it is okay to reject what you know ever since when just to make sure that Utilitarianism would not create or face-off with any conflicts.

2. According to my previous readings, utilitarian’s focus more on human beings. I don’t neglect the nonhuman animals and the lakes and the streams. I think there is also a part of Utilitarianism that protects these natures gift because it can affect or cause unhappiness to the most essential being, the humans.

3. I am agreeing to that because I think merit should really be something that given independently of utility because I think that people treat this differently.

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems: Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/

Quote: “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fools, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.”

Learning Expectation: I am expecting to:
• Understand the meaning of Great happiness?
• Know and understand more the Utilitarian concept
• Distinguish the higher and lower pleasures.

Review:
At first, I don’t really understand the Utilitarian theory really is. All I know is that it is for the happiness of majority.

Utilitarianism is about like what I said the happiness of the majority. If the majority thinks it is good for them, regardless if it really against what ever law possible there is, it is still fall for the goodness.

Reading this make me concern about certain things like, if murder or killing people will be for the happiness of others, then it means that it can be legal? Like one concern that my ethics teacher said is it legal to kill disabled or people that can be classified as burden of the society just to said that it is for the betterment of all?

Another concern that I had on this theory is that you don’t have a certain rules or jurisdictions. The only thing you know is it is for the happiness of everybody. So if you are a good speaker and can convince everyone to believe that it is for their own happiness, then whatever you do will be classifies as legal.

I do like what Mill say about higher and lower pleasures. People tend to choose lower pleasure because they didn’t know what’s on the higher pleasures. People like what I said choose the lower pleasures because they are more stable that those which is on the higher pleasures.

Actually reading this Utilitarianism by Mill makes me remember some quotes that say, when you want something higher, you will work higher also. That saying makes I think that most people tend to choose the latter part because they don’t want to work more or give their effort more. They just go with the flow, no matter what happen, there will be people who wanted to achieve more and they will just hope that those will help them also.

What I have learned:
I learned on this chapter that most people will choose to the easiest way of pleasures that those they can feel more satisfied. There are only few people who have the guts to be different and make their own way.

I also learned that I am right when I think that there is more higher pleasures that physical pleasures. I mean I need physical pleasures, but the emotional and intellectual pleasures will give me contentment that I am really longing or looking for.

In this chapter I realized that I want a portion of Utilitarian government but not as a whole because in order to make a better society with this kind of theory, one should have a great discipline and strong and right foundation of what is right and wrong. I don’t say that we don’t have that, but we need to practice more and develop a strong foundation regarding self-discipline, the definition and boundaries of right and wrong.

Review Questions:

1. State and explain the Principle of Utility. Show how it could be used to justify actions that are conventionally viewed as wrong, sucha as lying and stealing.
2. How does Mill reply to the objection that Epicureanism is a doctrine worthy only of swine?
3. How odes Mill distinguish between higher and lower pleasures?
4. According to Mill, whose happiness must be considered?
5. Carefully reconstruct Mill’s proof of the Principle of Utility.

Answer:

1. The principle of utility or the Greatest Happiness Principle state that the actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of Happiness. By happiness are intended pleasures and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and privation of pleasures.

Principle of Utility or Great Happiness could be used to justify conventionally wrong action such as stealing and lying because both bring unhappiness. When someone lies to other people, there are two most common reasons that they have, first is that they don’t want to hurt other people so they just lie, the second one is that the truth will badly affect what is important to his/her. But no matter on what aspect you will look, lying will only bring unhappiness because you hide something from someone which always being mislead or misinterpret as backstabbing or untrustworthiness.

With stealing, on Utilitarian point of view, it is wrong because a single snatcher or stealer can affect or can bring unhappiness to other people. By single pick-picketers, s/he can victimize 20 people a day, which can bring unhappiness to the majority. And for the Utilitarian, what can cause unhappiness is wrong.

2. Mill said that it is degrading because the beast’s pleasure does not satisfy human beings conceptions of happiness.

3. According to Mill, he said that a pleasure is merely a pleasure, and the only difference is the greater in amount. The higher pleasure is the one that all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feelings of moral obligation to prefer it.

The lower pleasure is when those who are competently acquainted with both, place so far above the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of discontent, and would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasures which their nature is capable of.

4. Though it wasn’t clearly stated, according to what I understand, the happiness that should be considered is the majority or those higher in terms of number that can be happy by a certain events, decision, etc.

5. Mill said “The Utilitarian doctrine is that happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being desirable as means to that end”.

Discussion Questions:

1. Is happiness nothing more than pleasure, and the absence of pain? What do you think?
2. Does Mill convince you that the so-called higher pleasures are better than the lower ones?
3. Mill says, “In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spriit of the ethics of utility.” Is this true or not?
4. Many commentators have thought that Mill’s proof of the Principle of Utility is defective. Do you agree? If so, then what mistake or mistakes does he make? Is there any way to reformulate the proof so that it is not defective?

Answer:

1. Personally, I don’t really think happiness is the absolute absence of pain and nothing more but pleasures. I said this because in reality, you know happiness because you experienced sadness. Happiness is something that you feel when you don’t feel any pain, happiness is something that you feel when you know that even you have bunch or problems or you will be hurt, you still have the courage to smile or be happy because at least you do what you wanted, no regrets. In addition, for me happiness is not for a pleasure alone, you can only feel true happiness even the presence of pleasures is absent.

2. Actually, up to now, I don’t really understand the difference of the two pleasures because the definition is too technical and my brain is already tired. Though I don’t fully understand it, I can say that higher pleasure is better because it requires man to be a really superior being.
For those people who chooses lower pleasures over the higher, I can say that those things are case to case basis or very subjective. You will chose something that is appropriate for what you have encountered in you walk through your life. I don’t really think it would matter whether you are into higher or lower, because like what Mill said, it’s both pleasures and the only thing they differ is the greater in number.

3. I do agree with this because the Golden Rule of Jesus of Nazareth stated that: to do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbor as yourself, constitutes the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality. On the principle of utility, you should do something that will benefit the majority. You should be the cause of happiness not the other way around, and in order to start or be the cause of others happiness, you main basis is yourself.

4. Midgley think that the basis for criticizing others culture is the culture of our own. She raise the question “How can we can’t judge others culture, can we really judge our own?”

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems: Master and Slave Morality by Friedrich Nietzsche
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/

Quote: “Every elevation of the type of man has hitherto been the work of an aristocratic society – and so will always be – a society believing in a long scale of graduations of ranks, differences of worthy among human beings, and requiring slave in some form or another”

Learning Expectation: On this chapter, I am expecting the following:
1. Understand the concept of Master and Slave Morality
2. Know why people wanted to be a slave or be the master.
3. Understand Nietzsche point of view regarding about a healthy society.

Review:
Master-Slave Morality, I remember that the first time I heard this term is on my history class way back in high school. I really like the topic because it is something that we, Filipinos experienced on Spanish hands, that is the reason why we are in need if maids to do stuff for us.

According to Nietzsche, a healthy society is a society where there are only two types of people, the superior and the inferior. It is a healthy environment because on his view, having this kind of society can bring peacefulness. Fights are less because people will be submissive to other people. The inferior will never said anything in front of their superior, because like what I always heard “I have no rights!”.

Though it is okay to live on environment like that, where arguments can only exist between same classes, less conflict because the number of people who can fight towards another decreases. Like what I said, it is okay to live on that environment, because the chance of making it so peaceful is very high, though I don’t want to live on it because an inferior doesn’t have any voice in relations to their rights.

Master Morality on these ethical theories is very powerful because they can be a creator of value in which they have the ability to do what they think is right. Having this concept in mind, I remember Marie Antoinette and Louis The Sixteenth because both of them represent the bad side of Master Morality.
Slave Morality on the other hand is just allowing other to step on his right with a belief that it is bad to rule or be on the top. I can say on my own words that this morality is for the coward who doesn’t want to take any risk. Without thinking or dreaming for the star, how can I even land on moon or clouds?

What I have learned:

Nietzsche is somewhat promoting Nazism, in which I don’t want to happen. If Nietzsche thinks it is better, what if he will be on the slavery part? Would he be happy and accept it?

Submission is good on some point, especially when you knew it is the right thing to do. It is okay to raise your white flag when you know or realized that it is more okay to have a negotiation or peace talk rather than killing and be killed. But like I said, it is on some point because a person should also fight for what he believes in. It is really fulfilling knowing that somewhere in your life; you fought for the things that you know can make you happy, that once in your life the world becomes your slave.

Review Questions:

1. How does Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society?
2. What is Nietzsche’s view of injury, violence, and exploitation?
3. Distinguish between master-morality and slave-morality.
4. Explain the Will to Power.

Answers:

1. Nietzsche characterizes a good and healthy society allows superior individuals to exercise their “will to power”, their drive toward domination and exploitation of the inferior.
2. Nietzsche view injury, violence and exploitation as something that can occur if all people will have actual similarity of the amount of force and degree of worth.
3. According to Nietzsche, Master Morality or the superior, emphasize power, strength, egoism and freedom, while Slave-Morality calls for weakness, submission, sympathy and love.
For Master-Morality, good and bad practically means noble and despicable. The noble man regards himself as a determiner of values, he doesn’t require any approval, and he is a creator of values.
While Slave-Morality is essentially the morality of utility, for them an evil man arouses fear, in contrast to the Master-Morality who sees the good man as the arouser of fear. Inferiority or Slave-Morality is a shade of depreciation, it may slight and well-intentioned. For them, the good man must in any case the safe man.

4. Will Power endeavors to grow, to gain ground, attract itself and acquire ascendency- not owing to any morality of immorality, but because it lives, and because life is precisely Will to Power.

Discussion Question:
1. Some people view Nietzsche’s writings as harmful and even dangerous. For example, some have charged Nietzsche with inspiring Nazism. Are these charges justified or not? Why or why not?
2. What does it mean to be “a creator of value”?

Answers:

1. As I read Nietzsche argument, I can say that the charges are true because Nazism is about Superior-mentality, like the Master-Morality. For the Nazi’s Germans are super mans, which have the only right to live. Nietzsche argument was not as morbid as that, but still he promotes Master-Slave relationship, in which the slave should do whatever their masters will tell them to do. It’s the same thing as what the Nazi’s promoting and enforcing during Hitler’s time.

2. Creator of Values is something that a Master-Morality characterizes with. This phrase simply mean as someone who determine values. He doesn’t need or requires any approval; he passes judgment such as “What is injurious to him is injurious itself”. He acknowledges himself as the one who confers honors on things.

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems: Religion, Morality and Conscience by John Arthur
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/

Quote: “Religion is necessary to morality, because without God there could be no right and wrong”

Learning Expectation: On this chapter, I am expecting the following:
1. Understand The Divine Command Theory
2. Know why Arthur said that Religion and Moral is different
3. Knows what Dewey means that Morality is Social

Review:
I do like this chapter though I can say that it took me a hard time to understand what it really means.

I actually don’t know if I will contest The Divine Command Theory because I am torn in this idea. I do believe that we have moral values because God says so, but I am also thinking what if it turns the other way around? What it will be if God says that the wrong things are what we all know as right? And those are rights are the things that we think that is wrong. Would we really accept this idea and just swallow whatever God wanted us to do?

I also do agree with Arthur that Religion and Morality is two different things because morality according to Arthur is to tend to evaluate (perhaps without even expressing it) the behavior of others and to feel guilt at certain actions that we perform. While Religion, on the other according also to John Arthur involves beliefs in super natural power that created perhaps also control nature, the tendency to worship and pray to those supernatural forces or beings, and the presence of organizational structure and authoritative texts.

Though they are two different things, I can’t say that they don’t work hand in hand. They are related because one affects the other. Religion influences Morality as same as morality influenced religion. This connection is something that no one I think can contest because it is already proven by history.

Though they influence each other, I also agree to Arthur that Religion isn’t a necessity to moral motivation and knowledge because it can sometimes bring confusion due to the fact that there are different religions. And no one knows which is the real one, of course one religion would say they were the “right one”, others will also claim that tag.

What I have learned:

I learned that sometimes there is an instance where I will wonder what if God says the opposite of what I knew, would I contest that or agree to him fully? Actually reading this chapter makes me realized that there is a similarity between God and our Legislature.

I also learned that it wasn’t easy think that Religion is a necessity to morality because like what I read on the book, it said that you doesn’t know how much Religion you need to be moral, and you also don’t know whether your Religion is the real one because only God will know about it, and you are not God in any aspects expect the body structure.

Review Questions:

1. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion different?
2. Why inst religion necessary for moral motivation?
3. Why isn’t religion necessary as a source of moral knowledge
4. What is the divine command theory? Why does Arthur reject this theory?
5. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion connected?
6. Dewey says that morality is social. What does this mean, according to Arthur?

Answer:

1. Morality according to Arthur is to tend to evaluate (perhaps without even expressing it) the behavior of others and to feel guilt at certain actions that we perform. While Religion, on the other according also to John Arthur involves beliefs in super natural power that created perhaps also control nature, the tendency to worship and pray to those supernatural forces or beings, and the presence of organizational structure and authoritative texts.

The Morality involves attitude towards various forms or behaviors and typically expressed using the notions of rules, rights and obligations. While the religion typically involves prayer, worship, beliefs about supernatural forces or beings and authoritative texts.

2. Religion though it wasn’t really clearly stated isn’t necessary for moral motivation is because we have variety or others perspective that we look when we do things that we might say “right”.

3. Religion isn’t necessary a source moral judgment or knowledge because first, we don’t know how much religion we would need to know in order for it to provide moral guidance. And there are too many religions in the world which can confuse us which among these religions is true and how we will know that your religion is the right one. And if you are on the “right or real” religion, you still needs to find out what it is that he wants to do, which lead you on thinking about the revelations.

4. The divine command theory says that God has the same sort of relation to moral law as the legislatures has to statutes it enacts; without God’s command there be no moral rules, just as without a legislatures there will be no statutes.

Arthur reject this theory because he said that if we will examine The Divine Command Theory, it also says that actions are right because God commanded it, same as when we think of something is wrong means that God doesn’t command it. So according to Arthur, if God hadn’t commanded us not to do certain actions, then they would not be wrong.

5. Religion and morality is connected because they historically exerted an influence toward each other. People’s moral views are shaped by their religious training and their current religious beliefs. Morality is then influenced by religion.

6. Dewey morality is social is Arthurs fourth idea which says that depends on appreciating the fact that to think from the moral point of view, as opposed to the selfish one, for instance, demands that we reject our private, subjective perspective in favor of the perspective of others, envisioning how they might respond to various choices we might make
Discussion Question:

1. Has Arthur refuted the divine command theory? If not, how can it be defended?
2. If morality is social, as Dewey says, then how can we have any obligations to nonhuman animals?
3. What does Dewey mean by moral education? Does a college ethics class count as moral education?

Answers:

1. Arthur does contest or refute the divine command theory because he said that if what if God changes what we know right and wrong, what if he commanded that vices are right and good habits and exercises are bad, are we going to agree with him or not?
2. I think, we have an obligation even to non-human because we are asking our selves if what we are doing is right. And living to this world, we are given the awareness that we should care for all the living things.
3. Moral Education according to Dewey is something that must be taught an early age. It depends on our ability to imagine other’s reaction and to imaginatively put ourselves into other shoes. It also has a voice of conscience and indeed morality itself. It is an education where you listen to others, reading about what others think and do and reflecting within ourselves about our actions and whether we can depend to them.

I do think yes, because on an ethics class, students are asked to reflect about their actions. They are also do thing such as reflection which allow the student to check his conscience level.

Book: Contemporary Moral Problems: Egoism and Moral Skepticism by James Rachels
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Moral-Problems-James-White/dp/0495553204/

Quote: “Our ordinary thinking about morality is full assumptions that we almost never question”

Learning Expectation: On this chapter, I am expecting the following:
1. Understand the concept of Egoism and Moral Skepticism.
2. Know the difference between Psychological and ethical egoism.
3. Find the answer on my question “is people really an egoist in nature?”

Review:
To be honest, I do have lots of fun reading this chapter about egoism and moral skepticism though it is really challenging because I don’t get it on the first reading(maybe it’s a given because it is an ethical reading).

I like that this chapter starts with a story that really reflects what the author wants to talk about. Actually what strikes me is the question that somewhat similar to these: Why be moral when no one is watching over you? Why you should do well to others when no one asked you to do so?

If I do have a ring like on the legend on the Gynes, I can’t say that I will be good to it and used it for the sake of other people because it is what hypocrites do. I can say right now that I know if I had that kind of ring, there is a point in time when I will used it for my own selfishness. For the things that I wanted to have and the things that will never be mine.

My actions would fall only on two classifications of egoism; ethical or psychological. At first I do have difficulty on distinguishing their difference because they are almost the same. Psychological egoism talks about that no matter what we do, even we are helping other people, and we are still doing it for ourselves. Ethical egoism for me is the more vulgar one. On this view or classification, people are only living for their self-interest and selfishness; they don’t care about their environment or the people living with them. The only important thing to them is being the ruler of their word.
What I have learned:
Reading this chapter makes me think about human selfishness and self-interest. Actually, as I read this, I think about myself and the example given by this chapter. There are times that I do well to others hoping that they will also do well to me, the payback mentality is on it. And if I will look at that closely, somewhere on that experience I value self-interest.

Self-interest is something that we can’t free ourselves from. One point or another, we humans is egoist in nature. That is the reason when you watch reality shows like Survivor, you can see that people intend to do something bad or unacceptable to others because it is a battle of survival. Though we naturally egoist, I still don’t believe that we are just living for ourselves.

We want to be a better person, but we are also a being who care for his/her other beings.

Review Questions:

1. Explain the legend of Gyges. What questions about morality are raised by the story?
2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism.
3. Rachels discusses two arguments for psychological egoism. What What are these arguments, and how does he reply to them?
4. What three commonplace confusions does Rachels detect in the thesis of psychological egoism?
5. State the arguments for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesn’t Rachels accept this argument?
6. According to Rachels, why shouldn’t we hurt others, and why should we help htoers? How can the egoist reply?

Answers:

1. The legend of the Gynes, is about a shepherd who said to found a magic ring in a fissure opened by an earthquake. The ring would make its wearer invincible and thus would enable him to go anywhere and do anything undetected.

The question being raised by the story was, what reason is there for him to continue being moral when it is clearly not to his advantage to do so?

2. Psychological egoism is a view in which men are selfish in everything they do even if they were helping others. For Psychological egoism, people help others because they actually are benefited on what they were doing. Ethical egoism is a view how men ought to act. On this view, a man doesn’t have any obligation to do anything except when it is for their own self interest. He is not concern on whatever happens or his actions effects to others.

3. A. The first argument says that if we describe one person’s action as selfish, and another person action’s as unselfish, we are overlooking the crucial fact that in both cases, assuming that the action is done voluntarily, the agent is merely doing what he most wants to do.

Rachel says on his sample about Smith staying on his country to help his friend instead of going abroad. There is a possibility that Smith mostly wants to be in the country than going abroad, and it’s just happens that his friends needs help which becomes his excuse. We can’t say that what he do can be classified as unselfishness. But that sample is too bad, that it shouldn’t be taken care of seriously. People will never do anything voluntarily is a false. There are two exceptions to this generalization.

a. One set of action is when we not want to do something, but we do anyway as a means to an end which we want to achieve.
b. We do things even we don’t want because we feel we have the obligation to do them.
B. The second argument is about reaching or achieving a pleasant state of consciousness, rather than to bring about any good for others.
We will use the same example, if Smith stays on his friend, he will feel much better than leaving him, and that is the real point of the action. Smith feels much better and will assure that everything is okay. This argument says that unselfish man is also selfish because they get satisfaction on other people.

4. The three commonplace confusion are as follows:
a. Confusion between selfishness and self-interest
i. Selfishness is a behavior in which it ignores the interest of other people, in case their interest is being ignored.
ii. Selfish is not to describe someone’s action but to condemn it. As a sample, you will not call someone selfish when someone is eating a normal meal on normal circumstances, yet you can call his action as his self-interest, because he needs to eat.

b. Confusion about the assumption that every action is done either from self-interest or other-regarding motives.
i. This is false, once classic example is a man who continues to smoke cigarettes even he knows that he could have the possibility to get cancer. It is far from self-interest because it would dictate that he should quit smoking.
ii. “The thing to be lamented is, not that men have so great regard to their own good or interest in the present world, for they have not enough” (Butler)

c. Confusion about the common but false assumption that a concern for one’s own welfare is incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of others.

5. Ethical egoist can’t meet the requirement of being consistent because ethical egoist would not want to act others the same way he did. Rachels didn’t accept this because he said we need to interpret egoist position in a sympathetic way. And if somebody adopts this as his ideal, he would not advocate universal egoism, but he would want or advocates other people to be altruist. This would not be inconsistent; instead it’s the other way around, his goal of creating a world where his interest is maximized.

6. According to Rachels we shouldn’t hurt others because it can harm them, and the reason why we should help them is because they can be benefitted.

Though you are expecting that egoist will not be happy about this, but you are wrong. There is a stop about this argument, if the egoist doesn’t really care about other people – if he honestly doesn’t care whether they are helped or hurt by his actions, it already reached its limits.

Discussion Question:

1. Has Rachels answered the question raised by Glaucon, namely, “Why be moral?” If so, what exactly is his answer?
2. Are genuine egoists rare, as Rachels claims? Is it a fact that most people care about others even people they don’t know?
3. Suppose we define ethical altruism as the view that one should always act for the benefit of others and never in one’s own self-interest. Is such a view immoral or not?

Answer:

1. I think Rachels, answers Glaucon question, we should be moral because we can harm other people if we wouldn’t act morally.
2. I do think yes, most people cared about their environment and the people who are living with it, with or without their knowledge. It is a natural thing for us to care for other people. Even people can care for animals, what more for their fellow human beings.
It is also immoral because you become a martyr and you neglect your own happiness. There are points that you should give way, and there are also moments that you should be the boss and order around.

Book Review, Chapter 6
Book: Bottom of the Pyramid by C.K.Prahalad: Development as Social Transformation
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Fortune-at-Bottom-Pyramid/dp/B00006L5AW/

Quote:
“When the poor at the Bottom of the Pyramid are treated as consumers, they can reap the benefits of respect, choice, and self-esteem and have an opportunity to climb out of the poverty trap, which is basically great.”

Learning Expectation: On this chapter, I want to know:
1. What is social transformation?
2. And how social transformation affects development?

Review:
Development as Social Transformation, I’ve heard the term Social Transformation during my NSTP class in second year. According to Wikipedia; Social transformation is the process by which an individual alters the socially ascribed social status of their parents into a socially achieved status for themselves. However another definition refers to large scale social change as in cultural reforms or transformations. The first occurs with the individual, the second with the social system.

On this chapter, it talks about a country being a developed one. In order to be said developed, every one should contribute, everyone should do something because one can be tired on doing everything and he needs backup. After some thinking, I think the reason why we are not developing is because we have no unity at all. Like what our POLIGOV teacher said we can be united, if we are already pushed on the wall, like what happen on Singapore and our own People Power.

I also remember one of the things she said which I already hear with other people, we need to have discipline imposed on one self. If we have this, I think corruption will never be a word. If we have self imposed discipline, even there are people who are corrupt, we wouldn’t mind them because we know our selves and we want them to be like us, someone who knew what is right and wrong.

Self imposed discipline, no to corruption self policy is much okay than any protest that we see on Plaza Miranda and Edsa.

In this chapter, it is said that there is this capability in order to become profitable by way of staying or targeting the BOP. In order to encourage this person to buy, the company should make sure that they change things; they should offer great quality with lesser price.

What I have learned:
The change should start on one self that is the major rule in order to have development. I also learned that business can help to transform the country to be successful. If the business will help the poor to be change, it is a good thing.

Integrative Question:
1. What does social transformation mean?
2. What does development as social transformation mean?
3. Why should we alleviate corruption?
4. How do we know that that private sector is a corrupt company?
5. When should we actually stop the company from corrupting?

Book Review, Chapter 5
Book: Bottom of the Pyramid by C.K.Prahalad: Reducing Corruption: Transaction Governance Capacity
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Fortune-at-Bottom-Pyramid/dp/B00006L5AW/

Quote:
“Transaction governance capacity is about making the entire process as transparent as possible and consistently enforced.

Learning Expectation: On this chapter, I want to know:
1. About corruptions
2. And how it affects the pooer

Review:
This chapter talks about corruption, a word in which rings a bell to everyone’s ear. This word is the sinner on why certain aspects of our life don’t improved. I remember that Philippine is tag as the second most corrupted country on the South East Asia. It doesn’t bother me much because I am already used to hear this words and it wasn’t something that surprises me.

According to Wikipedia Corruption, when applied as a technical term, is a general concept describing any organized, interdependent system in which part of the system is either not performing duties it was originally intended to, or performing them in an improper way, to the detriment of the system’s original purpose? In this case, there were anomalies that private sectors venture into for the purpose of generating higher income or earnings for themselves.

The question is if it does this affecting the country? According to Prahalad corruption in various forms adds to cost burden and business uncertainty. Most developing countries do not fully recognize the real costs of corruption and its impact on private-sector development and poverty alleviation. The real victim of corruption is the people belong to the bottom of the pyramid. They were the one who is being affected because they really need people who will help them; they need government help in order for them to start on something that is decent and clean. Even a single cent can help the poor.

I remember one homily on Christmas, the priest said something about Pondo ng Pinoy, it is a saving process in which everyone gives 25 cents for the poor. The priest said that we should continue this because it will help the poor and it serves a slap on the face of the rich because they can see that the poor can help them selves, why they are more fortunate but they can’t help the poor.

What I have learned:
I learned how much impact this corruption can affect everyone, not just on my country as well as the other place. To be honest, I am not aware on its impact on both private and public sectors.

In addition I also learned that businesses can be considered as corrupt if they add greater mark up price which results to burdening the people. Many businesses are thinking of their self-interest by means of letting the poor people to buy what they need. One great sample is oil and rice, and the supply and demand things. I remember one term, hoarding which the business man stock supplies when it is abundant and bought it at a cheaper price, then they bring it to market when there are shortage in supplies and sell it to a much higher price.

Integrative Question:
1. How BOP will reduce corruption?
2. What are private sectors?
3. Are all private sectors corrupt?
4. How do you define corruption?
5. How can we stop corruption?

Book Review, Chapter 4
Book: Bottom of the Pyramid by C.K.Prahalad: The Ecosystem for Wealth Creation
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Fortune-at-Bottom-Pyramid/dp/B00006L5AW/

Quote:
“A business system is at the heart of the ecosystem for wealth creation”

“A market-based ecosystem is a framework that allows private sector and social actors, often with different traditions and motivations and of different size and areas of influence, to act together and create wealth in a symbiotic relationship.”

Learning Expectation: On this chapter, I want to know:
1. If the business system is at the heart of the ecosystem for wealth creation?
2. If it can really conquer global markets?

Review:
I can say so far that it is the most boring chapter because I really don’t understand what its point, except its relation with the ecosystem.

“A market-based ecosystem is a framework that allows private sector and social actors, often with different traditions and motivations and of different size and areas of influence, to act together and create wealth in a symbiotic relationship.” This one sentence from the book and I can say that it is true. An ecosystem is a system whose members benefit from each other’s participation via symbiotic relationships (positive sum relationships). It is a term that originated from biology, and refers to self-sustaining systems.

Like ecosystem, the bottom of the pyramid market is compost of different people and different things that others can be benefited from it.

Ecosystems are different in other places, like the bottom of the pyramid market, some are super poor, and some are not that extremely poor, other can still carry them selves and act as if they were on the top.

Historically the evolution of the large firm was a symptom of a maturing economy focused on system efficiencies through scale and scope. I do agree on this because it is really hard to manage a vast amount of people. That is what bureaucratic environment is created; to make sure that everything will be manage properly. And if you can manage everything properly it can lead you to a great fortune. It can lead you to a wealth creation that this bottom of the pyramid ecosystem.

What I have learned:

I really don’t know what I learned because personally, it is confusing or I don’t really pay attention to it. That’s the reason why I can’t see its connection to other things. I know that bop is something worth a fortune, but I don’t know what this chapter means. Maybe I can figure it out once I read it again.

Integrative Question:
1. Is their a market based ecosystem?
2. What is the meaning of ICICI?
3. What is the meaning of HLL?
4. What is the meaning of SME?
5. What is the meaning of FDI?

Book Review, Chapter 3:
Book: Bottom of the Pyramid by C.K.Prahalad BOP: A Global Opportunity
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Fortune-at-Bottom-Pyramid/dp/B00006L5AW/

Quote:
“Needless to say, the new product built for the BOP market is higher in quality and provides a better price-performance proposition”

“The most interesting lesson from MBCs from the operation in the bop markets is about costs-for innovation, distribution, manufacturing and general “costs of organization”. Because the bop forces and extraordinary emphasis on price performance, firms must focus on all element of cost.”

Learning Expectation: On this chapter, I want to know:
1. If the market at the bottom of the pyramid really worth a fortune?
2. If it can really conquer global markets?

Review:
Personally, I really love this chapter because it really knocks something on my head, and this is the fact that bottom of the pyramid is really worth a fortune. For the reason that it can also conquer the global market in which any business mans dream. Actually it wasn’t that easy to realize this because there are lots of things that you should think about, and people become skeptical.

It’s a good thing that the book provides four distinct opportunities for a large firms and it is as follows:

1. Some BOP markets are large and attractive as stand-alone entities.
Because the bottom of the pyramid markets is large in number, each bop from different place can be considered as stand alone. Each sectors of bop also can stand on their feet without any help because they are already used to it.

2. Many local innovations can be leveraged across other BOP market, creating a global opportunity for local innovations.
Since bottom of the pyramid markets needs more quality in a much lesser price, the company catering to this market which also said in the book that rich becomes interested on it. As I will quote on the book “The quality, efficacy, potency and usability of solutions developed for the bop markets are very attractive for the top of the pyramid.”

3. Some innovations from the BOP markets will find applications in developed markets.
One innovation that I really like is the detergent in India, these innovation attract also rich which I stated on the previous numbers. Those samples are the proof that these innovations also find its applications on the developed markets.

4. Lessons from the BOP markets can influence the management practice of global firms
“The bop can be a source of innovations for not only products and process but business model as well.” That is an exact quote from the book. And based on this number, I can truly say that bop market influence practice of global firms. One great practice is that company can offer great quality with a lesser price that the bottom of the pyramid market needs and crave.

What I have learned:
Actually, it’s not what I learned but it is what I realized. By reading this chapter, I realized that Philippine is a country more fortunate than the India yet we can see that the Indian are more successful because they are really looking and scanning their environment, and making some move in order for them to be better.

If the India can do that, we can also do what they did. I can say that we are one of the most intelligent being and we can really do something that can surprise other country. We should always remember that India is also like Philippines, we are on the same land.

Integrative Question:
1. What are the first distinct opportunities for large firms?
2. What are the second distinct opportunities for large firms?
3. What are the third distinct opportunities for large firms?
4. What are the fourth distinct opportunities for large firms?
5. Who created the Jaipur foot?

Book Review, Chapter 2
Book: Bottom of the Pyramid by C.K.Prahalad: Product and Services or the BOP
Library Reference: N/A
Amazon.com Reference: http://www.amazon.com/Fortune-at-Bottom-Pyramid/dp/B00006L5AW/

Quote:
“Because these product portfolios have been priced and developed for western markets, they are often out of reach for potential customer in the bop markets”

Learning Expectation: On this chapter, I want to know:
1. The 12 innovation principles of the bop market

Review:
This chapter is the highlight I think of the bottom of the pyramid. In this chapter we can see the twelve principles of innovation for the bottom of the pyramid market. These innovation principles are what make the bottom of the pyramid market be your own market. The innovation principles are as follows:

1. Focus on price performance of products and services.
I do agree on the book that when you serve the Bottom of the pyramid markets, it is not all about the price. It is said on the previous chapter that the poor are brand conscious which means that they also value quality and they are more detailed regarding about this. I remember my mom even said that it is okay to buy something with a higher price if we can assure that we can use it longer.

2. Innovation required hybrid solutions.
Combination of two solutions is the best and wisest thing you can come up. This combination will become what we called innovation. In order to capture the bop market, like any markets people need to used the existing process because they are adapted to it, but they should think that it is not enough because everything changes in an instant. So combining the existing with a new technology is a best move

3. Scale of Operations
The business minded people should think about a solution in which it can cover almost the entire bottom of the pyramid people. These operations should work from one country to another with just a little customization.

4. Sustainable Development: Eco-friendly
The bottom of the pyramid should also learn to act like the developed communities that are accustomed to resource wastage. They should learn and focus on the three R: reduce, reuse and recycle plus the elimination part.

5. Identify Functionality: Is the BOP different from developed markets
On the bottom of the pyramid market, functionality is different from those who are living on the developed market. This fact is such a consideration because the bottom of the pyramid market looks more on how they will use this and if it will be fitted on their needs.

6. Process Innovation
It is more likely as the product innovations, but on this part, the process innovation talks about on how the business man will encourage the poor to use their process, and this include education, training and other process to assure that they will properly use the thing that will teach to them.

7. Deskilling of works
On the bottom of the pyramid market, works should be as easy as it can be. Your business should adjust to the market and not the other way around.

8. Education of Customers
Your customer is the bop market, and your product should educate them on the different things that they can do with your product, the other things that you know that can be useful to them.

9. Designing for hostile infrastructures
The product should be adapted to any environment; it shouldn’t be sensitive because your market place is prone to dust and other factors.

10. Interfaces
The design should be simple and very ergonomic, something that doesn’t need to think about for a day in order to use it.

11. Distribution: Accessing the Customer
You should think of a strategy in which your product can access everyone from the bottom of the pyramid market, like what the AVON did.

12. BOP markets essentially allow us to challenge the conventional wisdom in delivery of products and services.
Be prepared on the surprises at store that the bottom of the pyramid market contains.

What I have learned:
Reading this chapter teach me the different innovation principles that the businessman needs if they will target the bottom of the pyramid market.

I also realized that the bottom of the pyramid market is something that you can’t easily access without proper planning because there is a great chance of losing. But if you carefully plan about this, it will cause a fortune for you. Now I realized what my teacher keep on saying about retailing and other stuff.

Integrative Question:
1. What it means by deskilling of works?
2. What is the third innovation principle?
3. What it means by education of customer?
4. What it is the eight innovation principle?
5. What it means by price performance or price isn’t everything?